Deliberative communication in
school - obstacles and
Three conceptions of citizenship education:
Patriarchal
Scientific-rational
and
A Democratic conception of education as an
educational and political project
• “that a too one-sided emphasis on participation as self-realization
is a manifestation of patriarchalism and ignores the innermost
essence of politics. Elster sees discourse democracy / deliberative democracy as an ideal, since it seeks to demand and develop
institutional conditions designed to raise the level of citizens’
knowledge, and to create a basis for a public exchange of views of a high quality and for the ‘best’ possible decisions. In the
educational community, therefore, the ideal of discourse
democracy emphasizes, not democracy as a form but as content. It does so by primarily aiming to enable citizens, by means of specific knowledge acquisition, to understand and, in the long run, be able to adopt a detached attitude to the political discourse. On the basis of that knowledge, every individual then makes an independent
• In short deliberative communication was
understood as
• a communication in which different opinions
and values can be brought face to face with an endeavour to ensure that each individual takes a stand by listening, deliberating,
seeking arguments and evaluating, while at the same time there is a collective effort to find values and norms that everyone can agree upon
• different views are confronted with one
another and arguments for these different views are given time and space and are articulated and presented
• there is tolerance and respect for the
concrete other and participants learn to listen to the other person’s argument
• elements of collective will formation are
present, i.e. an endeavour to reach consensus or at least temporary
agreements and/or to draw attention to differences
• authorities/traditional views (represented, for
example, by parents and tradition) can be questioned and there are opportunities to challenge one’s own tradition
• there is scope for students to communicate
and deliberate without teacher control, i.e. for argumentative discussions between students with the aim of solving problems or shedding light on them from different points of view
• that nobody who would make a relevant contribution may be excluded
• that all participants are granted an equal opportunity to make contributions
• that the participants must mean what they say
• that communication must be freed from external and internal coercion so that the ‘yes’ or ‘no’
stances that participants adopt on criticizable
validity claims are motivated solely by the rational force of the better reasons (Habermas in The
Critique vs deliberation
•
equality / inequality
•
authority
•
if it is consensusdriven and the
consequences of that ….
• Is the idea of deliberative communication in
schools then a liberal idea? Well, in a way it is and could be but the idea also reflects
• 1) the idea of a common school where people
with different backgrounds meet each other, and 2) the idea of the school as a weak
public sphere where questions treated in society also are dealt with in schools and where different views and opinions are
offered and welcomed, 3) which mean that schools are genuinely pluralist.
